JUDGMENT Rakesh Saksena, J. 1. Since both the above appeals arise out of the common judgment, this judgment shall govern the disposal of both the appeals. 2. Appellant Somat of Criminal Appeal No. 263/2002 and Respondents Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad of Criminal Appeal No. 759/2002 were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai District Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 430/2000 of the charge under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, by judgment dated 29.01.2002, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Somat under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and acquitted accused Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that all the four accused persons were neighbours of Nasso Bi, the deceased. It is said that accused Somat had an evil eye on Nasso Bi and often he used to tease her. When Nasso Bi in this regard complained to her brother Asraf Khan, Asraf admonished Somat. Being annoyed on 11.10.2000, the women of the family of Somat abused and manhandled Nasso Bi at about 9-10:00 a.m. Thereafter all the four accused persons went at the house of Nasso Bi. Somat had a can of kerosene. On the exhortation made by Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad, Somat entered the house of Nasso Bi and after (3) Cr.A.263/2002 Cr.A.759/2002 pouring kerosene ignited her. Nasso Bi cried and rushed out of her house. Asraf, Quadir, Kastiya and some other persons reached there and saw accused persons running away from there. It is alleged that Nasso Bi narrated the incident to them. Injured Nasso Bi was taken to police station Khurai where she lodged first information report Ex.P/16 at about 10:45 a.m. 4. Nasso Bi was then sent to Civil Hospital, Khurai where Dr. D.B.S. Chauhan (PW-5) examined her injuries vide MLC report Ex.P/5. He also recorded dying declaration Ex.P/4 of Nasso Bi at about 11:48 a.m. In view of serious condition he referred Nasso Bi to District Hospital Sagar for further treatment. In the evening at about 4:30 p.m. Nasso Bi expired at Sagar. D.B.S. Chauhan (PW-5) examined her injuries vide MLC report Ex.P/5. He also recorded dying declaration Ex.P/4 of Nasso Bi at about 11:48 a.m. In view of serious condition he referred Nasso Bi to District Hospital Sagar for further treatment. In the evening at about 4:30 p.m. Nasso Bi expired at Sagar. Intimation of her death was sent to police station Khurai and an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added to already registered case. Investigating Officer B.M. Dubey (PW-21) prepared the inquest and after going at the spot, prepared the spot map and seized a can, half burnt match stick and some other articles. Seized articles were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. Dr. C.K. Dubey (PW-20), medical officer in district hospital, Sagar conducted autopsy of the dead body and vide postmortem report Ex.P/14 found 95% burn injuries on the body of deceased. After further requisite investigation, charge sheet was filed against all the four accused persons. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 302 against accused Somat and under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad. All the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of evidence adduced in the case, acquitted accused Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad, but held accused Somat guilty for intentionally causing death of Nasso Bi by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as aforesaid. State has challenged the acquittal of accused Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad whereas Appellant Somat has challenged his conviction in his appeal. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. It was no longer disputed that deceased Nasso Bi died of burn injuries. It is also reflected from the evidence of Dr. D.B.S. Chauhan (PW-5) that on 11.10.2000 when he was posted as medical officer in Community Health Centre, Khurai, Nasso Bi was brought by constable Dhaniram. He had examined her injuries and found 98% second and third degree burn injuries on her body. There were superficial burns and blisters on her whole of the body except private parts and soles of feet. Smell of kerosene was emanating from her body and clothes. Her MLC report Ex.P/5 was written and signed by him. He had examined her injuries and found 98% second and third degree burn injuries on her body. There were superficial burns and blisters on her whole of the body except private parts and soles of feet. Smell of kerosene was emanating from her body and clothes. Her MLC report Ex.P/5 was written and signed by him. For further treatment and opinion Nasso Bi was referred to district hospital, Sagar. 9. Dr. C.K. Dubey (PW-20), who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Nasso Bi on 12.10.2000, also found smell of kerosene in her hair and body and ante mortem burns on her face, neck, chest, back, abdomen, both hands, both thighs and feet. Only private parts, soles and palms were not burnt. There were blisters on her body. Carbon particles were found in her trachea. The cause of death of Nasso Bi was shock due to burn injuries and its complication. Her (5) Cr.A.263/2002 Cr.A.759/2002 postmortem examination report Ex.P/14 was written and signed by Dr. Dubey (PW-20). In our opinion, it was thus clearly evident that deceased Nasso Bi died of burn injuries. 10. Learned Counsel for Appellant Somat, however, submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the dying declaration Ex.P/4 of the deceased allegedly recorded by Dr. D.B.S. Chauhan (PW-5) and also committed error in relying on the evidence of Quadir (PW-8) and Asraf (PW-10) who allegedly heard deceased shouting that accused Somat and others set fire to her. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of Appellant Somat as well as contended that the trial Court committed error in acquitting Respondents/accused Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad. 11. We have gone through the entire evidence on record. 12. Dying declaration Ex.P/4 of the deceased was recorded by Dr. D.B.S. Chauhan (PW-5), medical officer of Community Health Centre, Khurai. Dr. Chauhan categorically deposed in his evidence that on 11.10.2000 at 11:48 a.m., he had recorded the dying declaration of Nasso Bi who was brought to hospital by constable Dhaniram. According to dying declaration, Nasso Bi stated that at about 9 o'clock in the morning when she was at her house, Somat came there and poured five litres of kerosene on her and set her ablaze. She shouted and ran out of the house in burning condition. At that time nobody was there. According to dying declaration, Nasso Bi stated that at about 9 o'clock in the morning when she was at her house, Somat came there and poured five litres of kerosene on her and set her ablaze. She shouted and ran out of the house in burning condition. At that time nobody was there. Somat wanted to ravish her, when she objected, he burnt her. Dr. Chauhan (PW-5) deposed that he recorded her statement in presence of Smt. Lalita Sahu, staff nurse and Smt. Manju Pandey, M.P.W. in Community Health Centre, Khurai. He obtained the right hand thumb impression of Nasso Bi and attested the same. According (6) Cr.A.263/2002 Cr.A.759/2002 to Dr. Chauhan (PW-5), smell of kerosene was emanating from the body and clothes of Nasso Bi. He deposed that he had asked police to get dying declaration recorded by Magistrate, but looking to the condition of injured, he himself recorded the dying declaration. He did not record any separate certificate about the general condition of injured because the patient herself said that she was able to give her statement. He denied that at the time of recording the dying declaration any member of the family of Nasso Bi was present. Dr. Chauhan testified that he recorded the statement in the female ward. He first checked up the patient and gave treatment, thereafter recorded her statement. He categorically stated that patient was capable and fit to give answers to the questions asked by him. Nasso Bi had not disclosed the name of any other person except accused Somat. On the question put by Court, Dr. Chauhan deposed that even a 100% burnt person can speak before going into coma. 13. Learned Counsel for Appellant Somat strenuously urged that the evidence of Dr. D.B.S. Chauhan (PW-5) was belied by the evidence of Quadir (PW-8) who stated that doctor had referred Nasso Bi to Sagar at about 11-11:30 a.m. and she was then taken to Sagar, whereas the dying declaration Ex.P/4 is said to have been recorded between 11:48 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. This inconsistency, in our opinion, cannot be treated as a material inconsistency in view of fact that witness Quadir (PW-8) happened to be a rustic labourer. He gave only the approximate time of referring of Nasso Bi. Therefore, in view of categoric evidence of Dr. Chauhan, the evidence of dying declaration Ex.P/4 recorded by him cannot be doubted. 14. He gave only the approximate time of referring of Nasso Bi. Therefore, in view of categoric evidence of Dr. Chauhan, the evidence of dying declaration Ex.P/4 recorded by him cannot be doubted. 14. Learned Counsel for Appellant Somat contended that there had been love affair between Nasso Bi and Somat, and her brother Asraf had rebuked Nasso for that, therefore, annoyed Nasso Bi committed suicide by setting fire to herself. There is absolutely no evidence on record to substantiate the submissions made by learned Counsel. It is true that such a suggestion was put to Asraf (PW-10), but he firmly denied it. According to him, Nasso had told him that accused persons used to harass her. 15. Learned Counsel for Appellant Somat argued that since Quadir (PW-8) and Asraf (PW-10) deposed that when they reached the house of Nasso, she told to them that all the four accused persons viz. Somat, Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad set fire to her because Somat wanted to outrage her modesty, trial Court committed error in convicting accused Somat only and acquitting other accused persons on the ground that other accused persons were not named by Nasso in the dying declaration Ex.P/4. Learned Counsel further argued that in the first information report Ex.P/16, which was recorded by deceased herself, all the four accused persons were named, therefore, the conviction of accused Somat only was not justified. Learned Counsel for State referring to paragraph 23 of the judgment of the trial Court contended that trial Court disbelieved the first information report Ex.P/16 in view of the evidence of Quadir (PW-8) and Asraf (PW-10). Both the witnesses testified that when they carried Nasso to police station, they were advised that if they wanted to save the life of Nasso they should first take her to hospital. They took Nasso to hospital and the police recorded the first information report in the hospital, whereas according to sub inspector B.P. Dwivedi (PW-18) he recorded the first information report Ex.P/16 at police station (8) Cr.A.263/2002 Cr.A.759/2002 Khurai and then sent Nasso Bi to hospital. He also stated that since the condition of Nasso Bi was serious he asked the doctor on duty to record her dying declaration. After scrutinizing the evidence in respect of first information report Ex.P/16, which could have been treated as a dying declaration given by deceased, trial Court concluded that the same was not reliable. He also stated that since the condition of Nasso Bi was serious he asked the doctor on duty to record her dying declaration. After scrutinizing the evidence in respect of first information report Ex.P/16, which could have been treated as a dying declaration given by deceased, trial Court concluded that the same was not reliable. Thus, the first information report Ex.P/16 was excluded from consideration. In dying declaration Ex.P/4, deceased gave clear picture of the incident and spoke only against accused Somat whereas Quadir (PW-8) and Asraf (PW-10), who reached at the place of occurrence after the incident, appears to have exaggerated in saying that deceased named all the four accused persons i.e. accused Somat and his three real brothers. Trial Court did not commit error in giving benefit of doubt to accused Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad, who were not named by deceased in dying declaration Ex.P/4. We also find trial Court justified in not relying on the evidence of Inspector B.P. Dwivedi (PW-18). Under similar circumstance, Supreme Court, in Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2006 SC 3221 , keeping in view the inconsistencies between two dying declarations, extended benefit of doubt to one of the Appellants. In our opinion, on the above grounds dying declaration Ex.P/4 recorded by Dr. Chauhan also cannot be suspected. 16. According to Quadir (PW-8) and Asraf (PW-10), they saw all the four accused persons running on the road. According to Quadir, after hearing screams of Nasso he saw accused persons running on the road, whereas according to Asraf (PW-10) in the morning when he went to admonish accused persons, at the shop of accused Seva, Seva and Devi got annoyed and broke down their (9) Cr.A.263/2002 Cr.A.759/2002 own glass containers with a view to make false accusation against him. Thereafter, there occurred a quarrel between Nasso and the family members of accused persons. Accused persons sent the women of their family to lodge report and themselves went to the house of Nasso and set fire. He saw accused persons running away after setting fire. When Nasso came out she shouted that accused persons set fire to her. In cross-examination, Asraf admitted that he reached at the spot after about 5 minutes of the incident after washing his clothes. By that time, the fire of Nasso was already extinguished. He saw accused persons running away after setting fire. When Nasso came out she shouted that accused persons set fire to her. In cross-examination, Asraf admitted that he reached at the spot after about 5 minutes of the incident after washing his clothes. By that time, the fire of Nasso was already extinguished. He did not know as to who was present at the spot before he reached. He further admitted that accused persons did not lodge any report against him of breaking the glass containers of their shop. After examining and appreciating the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, trial Court found that there was no eyewitness of the incident and that it was not acceptable that immediately after the incident anybody saw accused persons running from the house or near the house of deceased. Therefore, the evidence of Quadir (PW-8) and Asraf (PW-10) in this regard was not reliable. However, since their evidence in respect of naming of accused Somat by deceased stood corroborated by the evidence of dying declaration Ex.P/4 made to Dr. Chauhan, it was acceptable, but it was not acceptable in respect to other accused persons in the absence of corroboration. View taken by the trial Court appears reasonable, therefore, we find no reason to take a different view. 17. Prosecution also examined Lalita Sahu (PW-6) and Manju Pandey (PW-7). Smt. Lalita Sahu (PW-6) was the staff nurse in community health centre. According to her, on 11.10.2000, a woman was brought to hospital in burnt condition. (10) Cr.A.263/2002 Cr.A.759/2002 Dr. D.B.S. Chauhan had examined and treated her. Dr. Chauhan had recorded her statement and she and Manju Pandey both had signed on the said statement Ex.P/4. Lalita Sahu deposed that at that time patient was moaning and also speaking. Manju Pandey (PW-7) deposed that she was posted as M.P.W. in community health centre, Khurai. She had gone to deposit the slides of malaria in the hospital. She had also gone in the female ward to help the woman patient. Dr. Chauhan was recording the statement of patient. After recording the statement, on the request of Dr. Chauhan, she had signed on the statement Ex.P/4. According to her, she did not know as to what was recorded in the statement and that the thumb impression of patient was not taken before her but she had signed on the statement. Dr. Chauhan was recording the statement of patient. After recording the statement, on the request of Dr. Chauhan, she had signed on the statement Ex.P/4. According to her, she did not know as to what was recorded in the statement and that the thumb impression of patient was not taken before her but she had signed on the statement. She firmly denied that the statement Ex.P/4 was not recorded before her. 18. From the evidence of Dr. D.B.S. Chauhan (PW-5), Lalita Sahu (PW-6) and Manju Pandey (PW-7), it is clearly established that dying declaration Ex.P/4 of Nasso Bi was recorded by Dr. Chauhan. There is no evidence on record to indicate that anybody prompted or persuaded Nasso to implicate accused Somat. There is absolutely no material on record to indicate that Dr. D.B.S. Chauhan (PW-5) entertained any ill will or grudge against accused Somat. Merely because the evidence of Quadir (PW-8) and Asraf (PW-10) is not found acceptable against accused Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad, it cannot essentially be held unacceptable against accused Somat also in respect of whom the dying declaration Ex.P/4 appears reliable and trustworthy. 19. Ratio of Vallabhaneni Venkateshwara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 6 SCC 484 and Heeralal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, cited by learned Counsel for (11) Cr. A. 263/2002, Cr. A. 759/2002 Appellant Somat, in our opinion, is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In case of Vallabhaneni (supra), three different stories had been projected by the prosecution. In three dying declarations, each one gave a different version of prosecution story. Apex Court found that second dying declaration was not a mere improvement of first dying declaration. The story projected in first dying declaration was entirely different from the second dying declaration. The story in first dying declaration was given up and a new case had been projected in another dying declaration introducing new set of eyewitnesses and new set of accused. Hence, it was unsafe to convict the Appellant-accused. In case of Heeralal (supra) of bride burning, two dying declarations were recorded. In the first dying declaration recorded by Naib Tahsildar, it was stated that deceased tried to set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene on herself. However, in subsequent declaration recorded by another Naib Tahsildar a contrary statement was made. Hence, it was unsafe to convict the Appellant-accused. In case of Heeralal (supra) of bride burning, two dying declarations were recorded. In the first dying declaration recorded by Naib Tahsildar, it was stated that deceased tried to set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene on herself. However, in subsequent declaration recorded by another Naib Tahsildar a contrary statement was made. In these circumstances in view of apparent discrepancies in the two dying declarations, apex court found unsafe to convict the accused. In the present case, first information report Ex.P/16 allegedly recorded by the deceased was disbelieved by the trial Court for the reason that it was doubtful that it was recorded at the police station or at the hospital. Except the dying declaration Ex.P/4 recorded by Dr. Chauhan (PW-5) there is no other written dying declaration. Though Quadir (PW-8) and Asraf (PW-10) stated that deceased named all the four accused persons but their evidence about the oral dying declaration appears inconsistent with the evidence of dying declaration Ex.P/4 wherein deceased named only accused Somat. Therefore, their evidence in respect of (12) Cr.A.263/2002 Cr.A.759/2002 accused Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad appears suspicious and exaggerated. It is significant to note that accused Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasaid are real brothers of accused Somat. In our opinion, merely because Quadir (PW-8) and Asraf (PW-10) named all the four accused persons, the evidence of dying declaration Ex.P/4 recorded by Dr. Chauhan (PW-5) cannot be discarded wherein deceased named only accused Somat. 20. In Nallam Veera Satyanandam and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. AIR 2004 SC 1708 , Apex Court observed that "in case of multiple dying declarations each dying declaration will have to be considered independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of the contents of the other. In cases where there are more than one dying declaration, it is the duty of the Court to consider each of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself which one of them reflects the true state of affairs. In Sayarabano v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 398, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that criminal cases are to be decided on the facts and on the evidence rather than on the case law and precedents. In Sayarabano v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 398, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that criminal cases are to be decided on the facts and on the evidence rather than on the case law and precedents. In State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay (2004) 13 SCC 314 , Supreme Court observed that "It is not the plurality of the dying declaration that adds weight to the prosecution case, but their qualitative worth is what matters. It has been repeatedly pointed out that the dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness (vide the observations of a five-Judge Bench in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra). In as much as the correctness of dying declaration cannot be tested by cross-examination of its (13) Cr.A.263/2002 Cr.A.759/2002 maker, "great caution must be exercised in considering the weight to be given to this dying declaration genuinely recorded, they must be tested on the touchstone of consistency and probabilities. They must also be tested in the light of other evidence on record." 21. After bestowing our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Appellants and having examined the evidence on record, in the light of above propositions of law, we find that dying declaration Ex.P/4 recorded by Dr. D.B.S. Chauhan (PW-5) wherein only accused Somat was named is reliable. It stands corroborated by the evidence of Lalita Sahu (PW-6) and Manju Pandey (PW-7). It is also corroborated by the evidence of Quadir (PW-8) and Asraf (PW-10). It appears to us voluntary, truthful and, therefore, trustworthy. Since the statement made by deceased in the alleged first information report Ex.P/16 has been found suspicious and unreliable and the evidence of Quadir (PW-8) and Asraf (PW-10) does not appear reliable in respect of accused Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad, in our opinion, prosecution failed to establish their participation in the incident beyond a reasonable doubt. 22. Since the statement made by deceased in the alleged first information report Ex.P/16 has been found suspicious and unreliable and the evidence of Quadir (PW-8) and Asraf (PW-10) does not appear reliable in respect of accused Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad, in our opinion, prosecution failed to establish their participation in the incident beyond a reasonable doubt. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court did not commit error in relying upon the dying declaration Ex.P/4 and holding accused/Appellant Somat guilty of intentionally causing death of Nasso Bi by pouring kerosene over her and setting her ablaze and at the same time acquitting Respondents/accused Sevaram, Munna and Devi Prasad of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by giving them benefit of doubt. 23. Thus, we find no merit in both the appeals. The impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is affirmed. 24. Both the appeals fail and are dismissed.